2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-14-2014 

# I n R e: D iet D r u gs
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 13-4731

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: Die t Dr u gs " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 714. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/714NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 13

- 4731

_____________ IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Tonya R. Marler ,

Appellant

_______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 99

- cv - 20593; MDL Nos. 11

- md

- 1203 and 16

- md

- 1203)

District Judge: Hon. Harvey Bartle, III

______________ _ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 11, 2014 Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges

.

(Filed : July 1 4 , 2014 )

_______________ OPINION OF THE COURT

_______________ JORDAN, Circuit Judge. Tonya Marler appeals an or der of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying her recovery under the terms of the Diet Drug2

Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). 1 We will
affirm

. This appeal relates to the settl ement of multi

- district products liability litigation regarding the diet drugs Pondimin® and Redux®, previously sold by American Home Products (“AHP”). 2 Marler ’s c laim for benefits based on moderate mitral regurgitation
was first approved by an auditing c ardiologist, then was rejected by the Settlement Trust based on evidence of intentional misrepresentation of her echocardiogram test, and , finally , was denied by the District Court for failure to demonstrate a reasonable medical
basis for her condition. S he appeals, 3 arguing that th e evidence in the record met that

1 Marler is one of three claimants who have appealed simultane ously through the same counsel , the others being Ruth Sanders (Case No. 13

- 4548) and Elizabeth Lassetter (Case No. 13

- 4730)

. All three relied on the same attesting physician in submitting their claims ; they appeal the same issue

– whether there was a reas onable medical basis to conclude they all suffered from moderate mitral regurgitation; and they raise the same arguments. The briefs on appeal are almost identical, as are the District Court’s opinions regarding each claimant. For efficie ncy’s sake, then , we designate our opinion regarding Ruth Sanders as primary and incorporate the background portion of that opinion herein.

2 In several prior decisions, we have provided a detailed description of the Diet Drugs litigation. See , e.g. , In re Briscoe , 44 8 F.3d 201, 206

- 08 (3d Cir. 2006); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig ., 401 F.3d 143, 147

- 48 (3d Cir. 2005); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 385 F.3d 386, 389

- 92 (3d Cir. 2004); In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig. , 282 F.3d 220, 225

- 29 (3d Cir. 200 2). We will therefore limit our discussion to the essential facts of the instant appeal.

3 The District Court had original jurisdiction over all terms of the Settlement Agreement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1407. We exercise jurisdiction over a final or der of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As discussed in In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation (San ders) , we review for an abuse of discretion the District Court’s exercise of its authority to administer and implement a class actio n settlement. No. 13

- 4548, at 6 n.5.3

burden of proof and that the Court erred by deputizing the Technical Advisor with judicial power. 4 Regarding both of Marler ’ s arguments, we find that she has failed to show any abuse of discre tion in the District Court’ s interpretation or factual findings. The Court
undertook a thorough review of the record , including both parties’ statements and the opinions of both auditing cardiologist s , the Technical A dvisor , and Marler ’ s own attesting phy sician. T he District Court’s reliance on the Technical A dvisor was also within the limitations set by the Settlement Agreement.
III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm.

4 Marler also brings other meritless arguments that we briefly address and reject in San ders , No. 13

- 4 548 , at *6 n.6.